Waiting for Godot 2010

Ein Projekt von Heba ElKest, Mona Diab, Stefanie Dömel, Katja Wahl im Rahmen des Workshops FACE ON unter Leitung von Daniel Fetzner und Robert Eikmeyer

Keywords

Waiting for Godot, Human behavior, Skype, Communication.

Abstract

Based on the successful play by Samuel Beckette in 1954, Waiting for Godot, the performance tries to reincarnate the main two characters of the play, Vladimir and Estragon, more than 50 years later in the technology based life of 2010. The main aim of the performance is to shed light on the new behaviors people have acquired unintentionally throughout the years of being exposed to and impressed by technological abilities.

On a conceptual level, the project had to tackle several factors for a realistic interpretation:
1- The environment: the space in which the two characters are projected.

2- The behavior: The characters must posses behavioral aspects that are common between many teenage/young adults, fixated on the new communication means of the year 2010.

3- Technological aspects: Components added or removed from the performance to portray realistically yet emphasize the human behaviour and the link to technology.

Primary Concept and evolution

The development of the concept started out by the enthusiasm about the idea that many people across the globe have been affected by the rapid rise of technological accomplishments, and still awaiting the ongoing rise. How can/did this relatively new factor affect our behavior and more precisely our communication so much? Using a technical tool still in its beta stage but promising great potential, the NIA seemed as the perfect instrument to investigate a human psychological theory.
Referring to the scientific “theory of mind” the inner state of a person’s mind, it’s “belief” (opinion), can be identified by another person by observing facial expression and body postures, in order to anticipate and predict the person’s intention and next action. According to the theory this is only possible if one is able to represent the stranger’s psychic state in one’s own cognitive system. A neuroscientific approach related to the theory of mind is that this representation is build over so-called “mirror neurons”.
In it´s wanted simple-mindedness the installation supports the idea, the NIA would output a certain audio to represent the "thoughts" of each party on either side of the Skype conversation, through this, each side would try to imitate and anticipate the other party. The only communication between both is the series of sounds they are hearing, through which they would try to reach a certain harmony. Since it is in its beta stage, the Nia devices seem to work very poorly and would outline how rudiment neuroscience can still be, regarding actual human action.
However after several discussions it was decided that the performance should take a different path, being more related to certain identities yet still keep its abstractness somehow.

The link below shows a google document that includes each person involved in the project. This was the means of brainstorming, and thus it is possible to see how thoughts on the project evolved.

https://docs0.google.com/document/d/1Otf4iWXJyaXXQuCSuyIP8JnHkABLB1IAhvW-ObRryZI/edit?authkey=CKfSrPQL&hl=en#

Final concept

The performance is a modern interpretation of Samuel Beckettes 1954 play, Waiting for Godot, the following is part of a synopsis offered by wikipedia:

(:youtube BMz1-Kgz_DI:)

Realization

The first task was picking out effective parts from the two acts of the play. The lines picked were those that seemed to portray intended point of view, the choice was edited a few times but the following was the final script. the actors had to find a compromise between what they saw in the real characters of the original play as well as behavioral actions of their daily lives that are common with so many others across the world. To generalize one of the actors was German and the other Egyptian, showing that no matter where people come from they are still affected by and deal with technology in somewhat the same way.

ESTRAGON:
Nothing to be done.
VLADIMIR:
I'm beginning to come round to that opinion. All my life I've tried to put it from me, saying Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven't yet tried everything. And I resumed the struggle. So there you are again.
ESTRAGON:
Am I?
VLADIMIR:
I'm glad to see you back. I thought you were gone forever.
ESTRAGON:
Me too.
VLADIMIR:
Together again at last! We'll have to celebrate this. But how? (He reflects.)
they continue doing what they were doing before
-----------------------------------

ESTRAGON:
We're not tied?
VLADIMIR:
I don't hear a word you're saying.
ESTRAGON:
(chews, swallows). I'm asking you if we're tied.
VLADIMIR:
Tied?
ESTRAGON:
Ti-ed.
VLADIMIR:
How do you mean tied?
ESTRAGON:
Down.
VLADIMIR:
But to whom? By whom?
ESTRAGON:
To your man.
VLADIMIR:
To Godot? Tied to Godot! What an idea! No question of it. (Pause.) For the moment.
ESTRAGON:
His name is Godot?
VLADIMIR:
I think so.
ESTRAGON:
Fancy that. (He raises what remains of the carrot by the stub of leaf, twirls it before his eyes.)
Funny, the more you eat the worse it gets.
VLADIMIR:
With me it's just the opposite.
VLADIMIR:
The essential doesn't change.
ESTRAGON:
Nothing to be done

PAUSE

ESTRAGON:
He should be here.
VLADIMIR:
He didn't say for sure he'd come.
ESTRAGON:
And if he doesn't come?
VLADIMIR:
We'll come back tomorrow.
ESTRAGON:
And then the day after tomorrow.
VLADIMIR:
Possibly..
ESTRAGON:
We came here yesterday.
VLADIMIR:
Ah no, there you're mistaken.
ESTRAGON:
What did we do yesterday?
VLADIMIR:
What did we do yesterday?
ESTRAGON: Yes.
In my opinion we were here.
Pause again for a while
---------------

ESTRAGON:
I can't go on like this.
VLADIMIR:
That's what you think.
ESTRAGON:
If we parted? That might be better for us.
VLADIMIR:
We'll hang ourselves tomorrow. (Pause.) Unless Godot comes.
ESTRAGON:
And if he comes?
VLADIMIR:
We'll be saved.
ESTRAGON:
Well? Shall we go?He pulls up his trousers.
VLADIMIR:
Well? Shall we go?
ESTRAGON:
Yes, let's go.
(They do not move.)

SKYPE CONVERSATION END

After finalizing the script next came setting up an appropriate environment to fit the concept. It was important to emphasize the a very high-tech environment. Not stopping at just using the already great capabilities of Skype as a communication tool between two people with miles in between them, or the fact that the two parties are using not much more than personal laptops that are 15 inches wide to accomplish this communication, which to Beckette and every other person in the 1950s would have seemed as nothing more than wishful thinking at best, it was decided that the NIA would also be used, which is still an extraordinary notion to most people in 2010.

During the pauses, the NIA would read the brain activities of the two actors and transform them through MAX/MSP to a "what may sound like futuristic" sound. These sounds indicate that even when not communicating the human mind goes on thinking and what not.
After the first shooting trial (seen below), it was also decided that the lights should be out for both characters, this way elminating extra unnecessary information from hte background, and also adding to the concept that people are lost within the new world they now live in.

While the two characters were speaking it was important that their screens were focused completely on them so that the message is clear to the audience, however in the pauses the distraction most computer users experience was to be pointed out. The two actors would access sites like facebook to communicate with other people, or google to find answers to their questions however vague they might be.
The final screen output would consist of a split screen with the recordings of each actors Skype conversation and desktop, beneath each there would be a graph straight fro max msp that show the data stream coming from the NIA and exiting as audio.

Technicalities

To create the audio, the NIA was placed on the actors heads, then connected to a separate computer. Through the NIA reader the information was sent to MAX/MSP, where it was connected to a cycle object to produce the audio, the information coming from the NIA was controlled by the forehead movement of the actors.
The Skype conversation was recorded by QuickTime pro, while the graph in max msp was recorded by Screenium. The conversation was recorded by a demo Skype plug in called Call Recorder.

Documentation

During the Trial recordings, the serious look, the screen light shining and cadre of the Egyptian actors face inspired a change of the final vision. It was decided that the lights should be out for both characters, this way elminating extra unnecessary information from the background, and also adding to the concept that people are lost within the new world they now live in.

(:youtube eFCPg7iW6sc:)



(:youtube RRu55_OvRD8:)

Live performance

A live performance took place at the media lab of the Hochschule Furtwangen, this particular space was chosen as it was very techologically up to date, dark, with huge screens on which the skype windows could be shown. Below is the set up.

Evaluation

When it comes to comparing the live performance to the video, although the setup itself was very aesthetically appealing and had a sense of its own, it might have failed to send the complete message, this is because during the pauses the actors couldn’t turn to facebook and other websites commonly visited. Thus even though its hard to compare and say which is better, the recorded skype conversation seems to portray the complete message. However it was a good chance to observe how the audience viewed the performance, which seemed to be more appealed to the pre-recorded performance.
Concerning the content itself, it appears that the link between the message that should be sent and the play seems to be strong, all aspects including the facebook pages and what was being communicated through them seemed to fit strongly and effectively.

Reflection

Heba ElKest

Being an exchange student for only one semester, I suppose I have a different experience than the other German students here when it comes to this project. To start with I come from the same cultural and academic background as our co-operative partners in Egypt, one would think that this already makes the project much easier and smoother for us, however the experience has not exceptionally been neither.

The topic of the semester, Face/Off, seemed very appealing and carried a lot of potential, however when it came to actually finding a suitable concept it was very hard for us trying to link Skype, face off, and communication. It’s still not clear to me if it was too much or too little freedom! On the other hand I must admit that the artistic/conceptual approach was an advantage I had against the German students. This is how we usually evolve with our work in Egypt; we are given a subject/topic at the beginning of the semester, and work a lot on it trying to find a strong concept with a solid background, while from what I have observed students here have a more technical background.

After many brainstorming sessions we finally came out with three concepts for the project, the next step would be discussing it with the group in Egypt. Again, even though we already knew the people we were dealing with in Egypt and had contact with them, it wasn’t as easy for us to communicate with them via Skype and emails as some would speculate. I personally found it quite ironic, the tool we were using to realize our concept, was already giving us a hard time! Finally though we were able to communicate and discussed our ideas thoroughly, both parties eventually agreed that we should go with our approach, and there was no fuss from their side about them giving up their ideas. However after our discussion with prof. Daniel Fetzner and Chris Fischer from Egypt, it was apparent to us that our concept was still lacking some attributes which we later discussed through a google document (attached in the wiki) where everyone can freely add their point of view.

While the group here focused on the technical solutions, as we are more experienced in MAX/MSP, the group in Egypt had the task to find a good storyline for the whole performance. This delegation of work deemed successful in my standpoint. The idea to perform the project live was also a great idea, it showed us how an audience would re-act to the piece, the set up looked great and fit perfectly with the concept in the media lab, and received admiration from some.

Overall I think this course was extremely interesting, there is no doubt that students gain a lot from such intercultural experiences. The topic fit perfectly as it deals with communication, and the feedback I heard from German students about Egyptian students and how they didn’t expect lots of aspects from them proved that there is a communication barrier between different countries even with all the technologies that surround us now and get us closer. Now that the course is over, I hope there is a chance for the German students to join us in Egypt, see how we work and learn more about our culture, perhaps even more of the stereotyping they had about Egyptians would fall, at the end of the day, if this whole experience proved anything, then it would be that all the technology of the world can’t replace human-to-human contact.

Mona Diab

The theme "Face/off" was an extremely interesting topic for this course. It fitted somehow to both the intercultural aspect, and the mediums used in the projects. In my personal opinion, the intercultural experience was one of the most important attributes to this project. The difference in culture, way of thinking, and way of approaching a certain matter, made the whole experience more exciting, as well as the outcome. It was in a way complimentary, while the Germans had more technical background, Egyptians had a more conceptional and more artistic approach. As i am an Egyptian, and only doing a semester in Furtwangen, the whole experience was different and a bit weird in the beginning. In the beginning, me and Heba, we could not position ourselves, wether from the Egyptian part or the German part, it was a bit confusing. However, once the process of brainstorming and research started, everything became more clear and more concrete.

At the beginning, we had several concepts, as well as the students in Egypt. We paired up and starting to brainstorm on one focused topic. After a lot of discussions, the idea became more clear to both of us. Here in germany, we focused on the technical aspect while in Egypt, they focused on the conceptional aspect of the project. Although we already knew the students in Egypt, we faced some difficulties in communication through Skype and internet, which was somehow ironic, as we used these same tools for our performance. In the end, it worked out fine, the script was ready, as well as the technical parts in max msp. Several trials were then captured before the final live performance in the workshop. The main problem we faced, in my opinion, was the Nia. The Nia is not a reliable source of input data, therefore, we faced a lot of difficulties using it in our performance. However, it was one of the key elements to visualize human thoughts, and behavior in a technological aspect, where people tend to waste their time, waiting, on the internet. The combination between literature and technologie, in visualizing a part from the play Waiting for Godot, in a futuristic type of communication, while revealing the characters identities, was the main aim of our performance.

To conclude, i think the whole experience was overall successful, from both intercultural and work aspect. In my opinion, the combination between the two different way of approaching a topic, technically (Germany) and conceptually (Egypt), was the most interesting part of the course. The topic was suitable to this intercultural experience, as it dealt with communication and identity, which can be seen differently in each culture. I hope there will be a chance to continue this intercultural experience in Egypt, in order for the Germans to see more about the other culture.

Stefanie Dömel

All in all was the project a really learn full and fun experience. In the beginning our group was discussing about a couple of different possible topics for the performance and it took a while until we agreed on one point in our “German-group”. We presented these ideas to the Egyptians (Google doc) and then discussed all together within a Skype meeting. This type of creative work was totally new for me because I never worked on a project like this during my bachelor. It took a while to get used to the open-mind-thinking and the different way of thinking of the Egyptians students. But it was very interesting to see how seven people discuss, have ideas, be creative and still be able to find a consensus. Deciding for “Waiting for Godot” was a great idea. First I wasn’t sure what to think about this play but you need to read it and think about it a couple of times until you see the full potential. In the first place we all had different ideas: stereotyping, differences between cultures, disabilities, religion, etc. And most of these ideas are somehow processed within this play. The work with the NIA was sometimes really frustrating. There were days when it worked completely fine from the beginning on and the next time it took hours to calibrate it. But nevertheless we decided to stick with the concept and tried to make the best out if it. Ignoring the headaches and other problems the NIA caused. Rana, the Egyptian girl that played the Vladimir part, and I talked about our parts in the play. We had to make sure that we actually show how the actual play was meant and try to show the new 2010-version. Thinking about the new way of communication and the differences about the persons personalities, we tried to show the “new world” while using technology (NIA, Skype, Facebook, mobile phone) and act like a “normal 2010 person”. For me, typical characteristics for a “normal 2010 person” were: - use all these modern technologies like they are totally normal and ordinary - be somehow uninterested about (almost) everything that happens - be self-contained and unemotionally In some ways it was hard to combine these characteristics especially while using the NIA because it forced us to use very strong facial gestures. Otherwise it wouldn’t react strong/obvious enough.

Looking at the final result I am glad that we decided to do it this way and I think everybody in the group learned something out of this project. Not only technical knowledge (working with MAX MSP for the first time, the NIA and the software) but also working in a group like this (different countries, cultures and languages, different ways to work). But all the challenges that occurred during the project were solvable.


References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transculturism
http://ttedsig.iatefl.org/resources/e-newsletter/TheEnglishText.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot
Fuchs and De Jaegher. Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation, Phenom Cogn Sci (2009) 8:465–486 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind